Originally posted by Cantuar
No scientist puts out a theory that's immune to being falsified. Most theories are changed and developed over time to align with new data.
Sure. I agree (keyword here is "most"). But this fact doesn't change what i said, that our theories can't be perfect. I believe God was present when He created the universe, and He recorded it in the Bible.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
OK. Thanks very much for clarifying.
Inerrancy is not a requirement by many Christian denomonations. If you prefer to think of the Catholic and Episcopal churches as not Christian, that's your right, but I have no reason to doubt their Christianity, and biblical inerrancy isn't one of their requirements.
II Timothy 3:15-17, I Thessalonians 2:13, and II Peter 1:21, among others, state that the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit, through different people. I don't know any denomination that doesn't take the Bible as 100% true. Otherwise, it's not a Church but some kind of similar-interests club. There is a Catholic man on this board who believes in the Genesis Creation account. The way you put it, Catholics and Episcopals have no need to believe in Genesis.
I have a question, Cantuar. Are you a Christian? If not, there's no point in arguing this with you.
The reason I think that creationists are the ones trying to tie evolution to the Bible is that scientists when working on evolutionary biology are simply doing science, they aren't doing anything religious, the're doing science in the same way that polymer chemists and solid-state physicists are doing science.
Did you say that Creationists are trying to fix evolution to the Bible? I think you meant something else. I can understand why darwinists would like Christians to believe in their theory. But darwinists are different from chemists and physicists in that chemistry and physics don't contradict the Bible. If you're right about 50% of scientists being Christians, then out of the three fields, darwinism will be the most controversial.
No science book on evolution is going to talk about the biblical implications unless it's specifically mentioning creationism. It's creationists who are saying "either evolution or Christianity, never both" and who are insisting that people accept (or, rather, "believe in") evolution so that they can have an excuse to turn away from God. It's creationist literature where you see evolution referred to as atheistic and as a competing religion. I don't know of any creationists who don't think that. People who accept evolution do so on the basis of its scientific merit, not despite lack of evidence to give them an excuse to reject God.
Let's see. You said Creationists say:
-- evolution doesn't fit Christianity
-- people accept evolution to escape Christianity
-- evolution is atheistic
-- evolution is a religion
In Genesis, after each day God looks at the world and says "it is good." If each day was several epochs, i can't imagine God would like animals killing and competing, suffering through ice ages and meteors. God isn't a sadist who tortures the world.
Evolution isn't a "lifeboat" for intellectual Christians to jump over to (i guess that's how you see it). It's the other way around. People haven't heard of Creation, so that is why they believe in evolution. I can personally testify to that.
Evolution is atheistic. You're right. I can't imagine how it can fit the Bible without completely messing up the Bible.
The definition for "religion" differs from person to person. I prefer to think of Christianity and God as separate from "religion." Generally, religion is defined as a set of beliefs put there by a supreme being. I've heard it said that darwinism is a "denomination" of humanism. If you think humanism doesn't involve a supreme being...
"The turning point in history will be the moment man becomes aware that the only god of man is man himself." -- Henri de Lubec,
Atheistic Humanist, p.10
OK, enough of that. Just to show that darwinism could be considered a religion, but is generally passed off as science.
How specific do you want? I mean, scientists broadly speaking have a similar religious makeup to the population at large, although with somewhat more atheists (especially the more senior scientists).
How haughty. I can see you're thinking Christians are generally stupider than atheists.
Considering that between 30 and 80% of people in this country are Christians, depending on how it's defined, I think it's probably fair to say that at least a quarter of scientists, maybe half, are Christian. I don't know the breakdown between physical and biological scientists, but the latter is certainly the larger proportion.
Ma'am, you have given no statistics. It's hard to talk about numbers when we're guessing.
And most biologists come across evolution in their work - many study it full-time.
Study, so they read about it. And whatever they read, they will believe, because it's from a "friendly" source. Studying economics in the USSR was different from studying economics in the US or UK. Not because the people were physically different, but because they were fed different literature. Do you see what i'm trying to get through to you? I know that the majority of literature in science libraries are good science. But a little protion is lies.
I work around scientists the whole time, and most of our friends are scientists and engineers; I know a number of Christians who are scientists and accept evolution, and I know only one scientist who thinks science disproves the existence of God (and even then he admits it's a soft proof rather than a hard one).
Yes, i understand. I know Christians who accept evolution. But i'll tell you a secret -- most of them are weak in their faith. They take man's allegations over God's Word. About the man who thinks he can somehow disprove God's existence, i know nobody can do that.
OK, God bless you, Cantuar, and have a good night.
Alex
